WaxedWookie @ WaxedWookie @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

1,078

Joined

2 yr. ago

That lack of delineation is also an issue, but a separate one. That said, I'd think an average user would think doing a Google search from an incog tab would be anonymised and not tied to them because of the privacy incog grants (or more accurately, doesn't). There's reasonable arguments to be made on either side of this point, but I think that Google have been intentionally misleading - which is now creating problems for them, motivating this change.

Again, all the information Google present when opening an incog tab would lead someone to the conclusion that Google won't track them. Unless I'm mistaken, when this came up years back, Google explicitly denied tracking people in incognito mode, and they're only changing their disclaimers now in response to a multi-billion dollar lawsuit.

No thoughts on the perception they seem to be crafting very deliberately?

Because the AI isn't needed, and would be computationally expensive.

Extensions like ublock origin and sponsorblock work just fine.

The likes of Canada, Australia, and (to varying degrees) Europe are slowly trudging their way toward fascism, but the US is attempting a speedrun at the moment. That's a far greater threat than large scale war.

I don't think it's likely, but it's a very real possibility that this will be the last meaningful election to be held in the US for the foreseeable future. The same can't really be said for the others.

To be clear, I was aware of the risk thanks to previous reports and my work in the cybersecurity space. I'm talking about the average user.

The name is deceptive, and explicitly calling out a list of parties that may see your traffic without naming themselves is deceptive.

It's akin to a guard saying beware doors 1 and 3 - there are dragons behind them. If you hear this from an authority that would know, you'd probably assume there's not a dragon behind door 2, or they would have said so.

The perception of "the man on the street" is a common legal standard that I'd argue Google has fallen short of here.

I don't use Chrome because I don't trust Google. I assumed they were tracking users based on previous reports.

I'm saying that i think a reasonable person would expect that their incognito browsing traffic wouldn't be monitored and passed to Google. This reasonable person standard is the legal standard for advertising and marketing claims in my country and many others.

The disclaimer explicitly calls out that your activity might still be visible to sites, you visit, your employer or school, and your ISP - they notably say nothing about Google. That kind of thing is very misleading.

Where in that disclaimer (or otherwise) would I get the impression Google will track me?

Expected incognito functionality sits in the gaping chasm between actual incognito functionality and TOR. When I'm being told I can go incognito - you know, sneaky, in disguise, I don't expect to have all of my activity broadcast back to those that say I'm incognito.

Of course, trusting current Google is foolish, but that doesn't make it less deceptive.

We need time get comfortable trusting games companies that have the track record they do not to fuck customers that have trusted they'll continue to provide access to their games rather than arbitrarily removing them, adding game-ruining monetisation, fucking with subscription prices gating access to their libraries and generally acting like shady arseholes?

Suuure - sign me up.

What if we swap "gender" for "cool"? I think it's pretty inarguable that's a social construct. I think I'm cool, and while walking around in socks and sandals isn't cool, I know I'm cool nonetheless.

Yes, gender is inherently associated with sex, and correlates with it the majority of the time, but it's not defined by it. This is similar to driving and being an adult - most adults drive, and most drivers are adults, but some grow up on farms, driving as kids, others live in live in accessible cities and never get their license.

That may be the goal - destroying working conditions to motivate attrition allows you to trim headcount without the hassle of layoffs or spooking shareholders.

It's a bit difficult to pull off a mass shooting from a prison cell, no?

Edit: It's hilarious you clowns think this is a hot take.

I firmly believe that conservatism in its current form is a mental illness - if you've seen someone move to the political right, you've almost certainly witnessed the cognitive decline (not to mention increase in paranoia, disgust, irritability, impatience and general irrationality) for yourself.

I'd imagine if you set fire to the places you spend time in, you'd know a bit about homelessness - but something tells me you're more interested in kicking people when they're down for giggles.

Fuck you, Shoresy!

Ah - wonderful!

I've not heard a remotely defensible explanation for the ongoing genocidal land grab, but I do wonder what could conceivably justify it.

Not sure about you, but I'll take workers reminding everyone who is in charge and how democracy works over cops constantly shooting the innocent - people, dogs, whatever, and generally carrying on like thugs.

Then there's pretext, and the leftists get painted as thugs - appropriate targets for more aggressive crackdowns.

It's a lose-lose, but protesters will almost never benefit by responding to police brutality with an armed response. Counter-protests are generally a lesser problem.

That's been the outcome, but I think you're dramatically overestimating Musk if you think that was his intent.

It seems clear to me that he's of below average intelligence with an overinflated, incredibly fragile ego.

Oh - we absolutely should be doing that, particularly when the passengers can use the Internet on flights already - but that seems like a (entirely reasonable) heavier lift, compared to a trivial storage upgrade and/or a minor config change to match euro standards or better.